P L D 1972 Karachi 51 (PLP)

I entirely agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no offence for possession of the pethidine was committed by Rashid Ahmed in view of the licence which was valid up to 30th June 1967, and, therefore, the charge which was framed under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, was not sustainable. The counsel for the State while conceding to this position, .maintained that Rashid Ahmed could not be altogether exonerated a9 he had contravened the provisions of section 7 of the same Act inasmuch as he had imported the injections under an expired import licence and, thereby he was guilty of an offence under section 13 of the Act. In this connection it was pointed out by him that the import licence which was issued in the name of Rashid Ahmed was valid for a period of six months and it expired on 25‑2‑

66. It was further pointed out by him that although the licence bore an endorsement that it was extended twice and the last extension was up to 15th October 1966, but these endorsements were forged and in fact no extension was ever granted. In the alternative it was urged by him that even proceeding on the assumption that endorsements were genuine still there was contravention of the provisions of section 7 of the Act as the goods had reached Pakistan on 19th October 1966, i. e. after the expiry of the aforesaid extended period of the import licence. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State I would like to refer to section 7 (1) which reads as under "7.‑(1) No one shall‑ (a) import into Pakistan. (b) export from Pakistan, or (c) tranship, any dangerous drug, other than prepared opium, save in accordance with rules made under subsection (2) and with the conditions of any licence for that purpose which he may be required to obtain under those rules." It is an admitted position that Pethidine falls within category of dangerous drugs and, therefore, it cannot be imported without a licence. The licence necessarily means a valid licence, that is, which is still in force as an expired licence loses its validity and cannot be availed of for the purpose of import. In order to meet this, the learned counsel for Rashid Ahmed urged that the Pethidine was despatched from Bulgaria on 10th October 1966 which date was within the period allowed by the import licence as last extended. The futility of this contention becomes evident by referring to the definition of the expression, "to import into Pakistan" as laid down by section 2 (i) of the Act, which reads as under: 11 'To import into Pakistan" means to bring into Pakistan by land, sea or air across any of the customs frontiers defined by the Central Government." The bare reading of the meanings of the expression shows that import into Pakistan to be effective, the goods must cross the customs frontiers as defined by the Central Government. It, therefore, follows that the goods must cross those frontiers within the period allowed by the licence. So the relevant date for the purpose of section 7 is the date when the goods actually cross the aforesaid frontiers and not when those are shipped in the foreign country or are in the open sea. Thus the aforesaid definition is a complete answer to the contention raised by the learned counsel unless something is brought on record to escape the effect of the legal provision. It is, therefore, for Rashid Ahmed to show that the prescribed frontiers were crossed within 'the period allowed by the licence. So far no such evidence has been adduced. However, it was pointed out that the customs authorities had released the goods and‑ allowed him to remove them. Indeed, it is so but it has not been shown to my satisfaction as to under what authority or provision of law the goods were released. In the absence of any legal basis to sustain the action of the customs authorities I am not in a position to support that action or ascertain its justification. In view of the order, which I propose to pass Rashid Ahmed will have ample opportunity to lead evidence and bring out circumstances in rebuttal of the prosecution case. In the circumstances the prosecution has made out a prima facie case for the purpose of charge under section 13 for the violation of the provisions of section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. I, therefore, direct that the charge be amended accordingly. With this modification the reference is accepted. K. B. A. Reference accepted with certain modification.